Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 140 posts

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#71

Post by raincom »

raincom wrote: post #62
dragonwriter wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One can lie for multiple reasons. For instance, to avoid conflict; or because one is not in a mood. Deception is one among many reasons. In all of those cases deception is the purpose of lying, the other purposes described aren't alternatives to deception, they are the purposes for which one seeks to deceive. It's true that focussing on this has a nexus with Christian moral theory and it's influence on secular mora…

>In all of those cases deception is the purpose of lying, the other purposes described aren't alternatives to deception, they are the purposes for which one seeks to deceive. That's what Christian morality says. There are other cultures which don't see the way you see. Western philosophy doesn't even answer the question "Why truth?"; only Nietzsche raises that question. In Christianity, truth doesn't need any further…

There are no such things as facts; that's the consensus of the debates in 1960s from history and philosophy of sciences, philosophy of language. Facts are facts of a theory: or, facts are theory-laden. Or observations are theory-laden.

When two parties engage in an argument, some theory-laden facts become facts (for instance, propositional logic in this context is seen as fact), other facts become theoretical claims.

That's the issue here: you call it a 'fact', I call it a theoretical claim. The dispute is at the level of describing the phenomenon itself. If one follows the best theory of argumentation in the market (that of pragma-dialectical school), this way of transforming theory-laden descriptions into facts violates one of the rules of dialogue.

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#72

Post by hutzlibu »

googlryas wrote: post #64
hutzlibu wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Both is the same. What matters is the intention. I will tell my boy stories about christmas and fairies, but I will not tell him santa exists as a real person.

Okay, so you just straight up lie to your children about fairies.

Huh?

I tell stories. I neither say, the exist or not. It is fantasy.

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#73

Post by silicon2401 »

bobthechef wrote: post #26

First, we mustn't discount the importance of properly expressed anger. Just as there is such a thing as excess or inappropriate anger, there is also such a thing as deficient and inappropriate anger. What "inappropriate" and "excess"/"deficient" anger are will require mature situational judgement on the part of the parent. There's no way around that, and defaulting to "no displays of anger" is not a true substitute.…

Your entire point is relative, perhaps to your individual views or your society's norms. "Properly expressed anger" can be a stern talk in one culture and violence in another. Perhaps it's best to keep in mind that there is never a universal solution, only different options that have different effectiveness based on a particular situation

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#74

Post by rightbyte »

tasogare wrote: post #25
ebg13 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Problematic" is a kind word for cherry-picked, misinterpreted, hypergeneralized, and contrary to available evidence with a hefty dose of noble savage xenoromanticism thrown in.

I’m always amazed at how English speakers took some loanwords from French, then derive their meanings up to the point they became offensive (examples: problematic, oriental). The issue is that for non-English native speakers those overloads are easy to miss (and usually absent from dictionaries), and a post can be made pretty trollish accidentally.

It is noa names, like eg. bear or how characters in HP speak about Voldemort. An old superstitious concept.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noa-name

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#75

Post by ksdale »

dragonwriter wrote: post #66
raincom wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In all of those cases deception is the purpose of lying, the other purposes described aren't alternatives to deception, they are the purposes for which one seeks to deceive. That's what Christian morality says. There are other cultures which don't see the way you see. Western philosophy doesn't even answer the question "Why truth?"; only Nietzsche raises that question. In Christianity, truth doesn't need any further…

> That's what Christian morality says. No, it's a simple fact: each of the examples provided is a further end that relies on deception in order for lying to further it, not an alternative end which lying can serve independent of producing deception. Christian (and Christian-derived) morality assigns particular moral significance to that fact, which other cultures might well disagree with.

FWIW, I agree with you completely.

I think the conversation gets muddled when we start introducing value-laden words like "truth." The crux of the matter for me is, am I lying in order that someone will behave in a way that they wouldn't behave if I told the truth. There are, I believe, good reasons to do this, and undoubtedly, moralities that believe there are never good reasons to do this.

But it is clear (to me anyway) that it is definitely deception, regardless of the justification.

If I'm not trying to get someone to act differently, then there is no deception (and perhaps this is what the other commenter is referring to), though it's hard to imagine a situation where you'd lie without intending to affect someone's behavior, even trivially, like to avoid a conversation with a passerby in the street...

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#76

Post by dragonwriter »

raincom wrote: post #71
raincom wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In all of those cases deception is the purpose of lying, the other purposes described aren't alternatives to deception, they are the purposes for which one seeks to deceive. That's what Christian morality says. There are other cultures which don't see the way you see. Western philosophy doesn't even answer the question "Why truth?"; only Nietzsche raises that question. In Christianity, truth doesn't need any further…

There are no such things as facts; that's the consensus of the debates in 1960s from history and philosophy of sciences, philosophy of language. Facts are facts of a theory: or, facts are theory-laden. Or observations are theory-laden. When two parties engage in an argument, some theory-laden facts become facts (for instance, propositional logic in this context is seen as fact), other facts become theoretical claims.…

> There are no such things as facts; that's the consensus of the debates in 1960s from history and philosophy of sciences, philosophy of language.

That is itself a fact claim—not just that that is the consensus of the debates in those fields, but even that such debate has occurred is such a claim. So either there are facts (and the conclusion of the debates to the contrary is false) or there are no facts and it makes no sense to cite the supposed debates or their supposed consensus. In either case, the claim about the debates is of no value.

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#77

Post by _yb2s »

choeger wrote: post #9

So a large part is to lie? I don't know. I mean, yes, I get angry by my children, and I don't know any parent that does not. Probably I get angry too often too early. But I really try hard never to lie to my kids. I even show them that I am angry because I think that's part of the game. Kids need to learn that other people have emotions. But telling stories about horrific creatures to avoid dangerous places? I don't…

This isn't a lie- it's mythology. The information is stored in the emotion and values presented in the story, not the literal details.

Most native american cultures have a complex mythology that explains the worldview, values, and philosophy of the culture. This is how the culture is transmitted, and even young children in these societies are used to mythology, and understand how to use it without interpreting it as a simple literal explanation of 'fact.'

The 'literal truth' doesn't work in place of mythology, it is hard to remember and interest kids with unless they've experienced it directly... unlike mythology, it fails to serve as a stable and effective way of transmitting cultural values over long time spans. The emotional content is critical for memorization, and attention... and also serves as a sort of 'checksum' where erroneous changes to the story generally reduce the emotional content, thereby causing the original 'correct' version to remain dominant.

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#78

Post by codemac »

nix23 wrote: post #61
perfmode wrote: post #57

it's funny how the world works > a Harvard graduate student made a landmark discovery about the nature of human anger. the article doesn't credit the inuits with the discovery. > By contrast, Briggs seemed like a wild child, even though she was trying very hard to control her anger. "My ways were so much cruder, less considerate and more impulsive," she told the CBC. "[I was] often impulsive in an antisocial sort of…

Does not seam to work very well either: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/canada-indigen...

You have to know there is a huge difference between showing and managing your initial anger response, and plotting a murder.

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#79

Post by mcbishop »

choeger wrote: post #9

So a large part is to lie? I don't know. I mean, yes, I get angry by my children, and I don't know any parent that does not. Probably I get angry too often too early. But I really try hard never to lie to my kids. I even show them that I am angry because I think that's part of the game. Kids need to learn that other people have emotions. But telling stories about horrific creatures to avoid dangerous places? I don't…

You could compare oral cultures to mnemonics (memory aids) — the more extreme the story, the easier it is to remember / recall the underlying message. That's how our brains work. I recommend a book about oral cultures (and storytelling) called: The Spell of the Sensuous.

Re: How Inuit parents teach kids to control their anger (2019)

#80

Post by nix23 »

Scaevolus wrote: post #70
nix23 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does not seam to work very well either: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/23/canada-indigen...

Do you have any evidence that those murders occur _within_ their communities by people raised like this?

>Do you have any evidence that those murders occur _within_ their communities by people raised like this?

No, do you have any evidence that they are NOT raised like this?

Post reply on HN